You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Prismattic comments on I've had it with those dark rumours about our culture rigorously suppressing opinions - Less Wrong Discussion

26 Post author: Multiheaded 25 January 2012 05:43PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (857)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Prismattic 26 January 2012 01:08:17AM 6 points [-]

Slavery, organ donations and sexual services for all ages should be legal if both parties give informed consent.

How would a 3-year-old give informed consent to be sold into slavery?

Even assuming the "for all ages" only applies to latter item, what would "informed consent' mean for a 3 year old?

Comment author: wallowinmaya 26 January 2012 04:52:00PM 1 point [-]

You're right, my formulation was kinda self-contradictory. Let's change it to "at least 14 years" or "IQ above 100" or something like that. (Remember that I'm not necessarily endorsing any of these views )

Comment author: Baughn 03 February 2012 05:37:23PM 3 points [-]

Or keep it as it is, note that three-year-olds are unable to give informed consent, and leave the definition flexible if that changes in the future.

Not that I can see how it would, but we have enough over-specified laws already.

Comment author: TimS 03 February 2012 06:03:26PM 0 points [-]

we have enough over-specified laws already.

?

Comment author: Baughn 03 February 2012 11:55:31PM 1 point [-]

If we had a law that stated that sex is okay if there's informed consent, and we believe that three-year-olds cannot give such consent, then we do not need an additional law stating that three-year-olds are not allowed. It would be entirely superfluous.

Furthermore, the situation might later change in such a way that the "clarifying" law becomes obsolete. Perhaps not in this case, but the general pattern happens quite frequently.

Comment author: TimS 04 February 2012 01:45:03AM 2 points [-]

Well, the United States doesn't required informed consent for sex, only consent, which is why statutory rape is defined by age.

As a lawyer, I think your general point about over-specification of law is quite strange. I'd rather have a precise law than a vague one. Interpreting laws creates the same sorts of problems as the hidden complexity of wishes.

Comment author: Prismattic 04 February 2012 01:47:58AM 0 points [-]

Depends on the state. In Massachusetts, it is (on paper) legally problematic to have sex with someone who is drunk, because they cannot consent according to state law. I don't think is enforced, or enforceable, much, though.

Comment author: TimS 04 February 2012 01:59:44AM *  2 points [-]

Yes, that's how it works in most states. I assure you that this is not the same thing as informed consent, at least as commonly understood by American lawyers.

Informed consent is what your surgeon requires before doing a medical procedure. It's probably better to think of it distinct elements: (1) informed of risks and (2) consent to procedure. That's not the prerequisite for legal sex.